Am 12.07.2013 23:19, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: > >> We have three independent options that the user can choose in any >> combination: >> >> o --force given or not; >> >> o --lockref semantics enabled or not; >> >> o refspec with or without +; >> >> and these two orthogonal preconditions of the push >> >> o push is fast-forward or it is not ("ff", "noff"); >> >> o the branch at the remote is at the expected rev or it is not >> ("match", "mismatch"). >> >> Here is a table with the expected outcome. "ok" means that the push is >> allowed(*), "fail" means that the push is denied. (Four more lines with >> --force are omitted because they have "ok" in all spots.) >> >> ff noff ff noff >> match match mismatch mismatch >> >> --lockref +refspec ok ok denied denied >> --lockref refspec ok denied denied denied > > I am confused with these. The latter is the most typical: > > git fetch > git checkout topic > git rebase topic > git push --lockref topic > > where we know it is "noff" already, and we just want to make sure > that nobody mucked with our remote while we are rebasing.
Today (without --lockref), the above sequence would fail to push. (Because there is no + and no --force.) > If nobody updated the remote, why should this push be denied? And in > order to make it succeed, you need to force with +refspec or --force, > but that would bypass match/mismatch safety, which makes the whole > "make sure the other end is unchanged" safety meaningless, no? I am suggesting that +refspec would *not* override the match/mismatch safety, but --force would. > >> +refspec ok ok ok ok > > This is traditional --force. > >> refspec ok denied ok denied > > We are not asking for --lockref, so match/mismatch does not affect > the outcome. I think you are worried that a deviation from the principle that +refspec == --force hurts current users. But I am arguing that this is not the case because "current" users do not use --lockref. As you have seen from the table, without --lockref there is *no change* in behavior. I still have not seen an example where +refspec != --force would have unexpected consequences. (The inequality is merely that +refspec fails on mismatch when --lockref was also given while --force does not.) >> Notice that without --lockref semantics enabled, +refspec and refspec >> keep the current behavior. > > But I do not think the above table with --lockref makes much sense. > > Let's look at noff/match case. That is the only interesting one. > > This should fail: > > git push topic > > due to no-ff. Yes. > Your table above makes this fail: > > git push --lockref topic > > and the user has to force it, Of course. > like this? > > git push --lockref --force topic ;# or alternatively > git push --lockref +topic > > Why is it even necessary? Because it is no-ff. How do you achieve the push today (without --lockref)? You use one of these two options. It does not change with --lockref. > If you make > > git push --lockref topic > > succeed in noff/match case, everything makes more sense to me. Not to me, obviously ;) > The --lockref option is merely a weaker form of --force but still a > way to override the noff check. No; --lockref only adds the check that the destination is at the expected revision, but does *NOT* override the no-ff check. Why should it? (This is not a rethoric question.) (I think I said differently in an earlier messages, but back then things were still blurry. The table in my previous message is what I mean.) > If the user wants to keep noff > check, the user can simply choose not to use the option. No. If the user wants to keep the no-ff check, she does not use the + in the refspec and does not use --force. (Just like today.) > Of course, that form should fail if "mismatch". And then you can > force it, > > git push --force [--lockref] topic > > As "--force" is "anything goes", it does not matter if you give the > other option on the command line. ... or the + in the refsepc. -- Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html